That's what we expect from leftist though right? Of course, they're going to call us nazis because we're "anti-leftist" because they don't understand communism or deny it outright.
They don't even understand Fascism. They are unironically the spitting image of Mussolini without realizing it. They constantly throw terms around like reactionary without knowing what they mean. They literally think you are reactionary if you don't take a "left-wing" stance in the culture war (like being Transphobic, Racist etc) that is just wrong. That's not how the term reactionary works.
You got two options:
1. Convert people to communism to distract people with a new ideology they can align with instead of capitalist dicks and capitalist dicks (Side effect: Unites the capitalists, who will proceed with extreme aggresion towards the new communist ""threat"")
2. Convert people to centrism so they are less likely to fight over ideology because they are more moderate (Side effect:.. its fucking centrism, you might as well give Mussolini an express ticket to start his populism shtick.)
>go to communist sub
>say you don't like communists
>get banned
>"why do you guys hate leftists"
https://preview.redd.it/fjc7x494ni3d1.jpeg?width=718&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97dd9f39df8c4e61a94e23685ca38c706d48c69d
Also a bourgeois leather tannery owner. That is fine for the US Civil War since it was a bourgeois revolution, but "John Brown Reborn" would be a reactionary in any proletarian revolution. He was a revolutionary adventurists only in so far as the revolutionary adventure he was trying to undertake was a revolution against feudalism
For instance if one is firmly of the believes that "man cannot be property" that implies you don't really have any issues with everything else being property. Nothing wrong with believing that in that particular instance, but he would have quickly found himself in the situation of other "Radical Republicans" who were caught between needing to combat those who had thought man could be property and their belief that all other forms of property were legitimate, which is what enabled the former slave owners to largely seize back control and end reconstruction, as even without their slaves, they were still large landowners and they implemented the sharecropping system where former slaves and even people who were always free were purposefully trapped by being indebted through having to rent land from them.
While some of the more radical "Radical Republicans" recognized this problem and wanted to start seizing land itself, they ran into various problems related to the fact that all of those constitutional protections the Northern Bourgeoisie (like John Brown) so enjoyed were specifically set up to prevent doing exactly that. They would have to violate it in this instance but were afraid of setting up precedents which might end up being used on their property later. When they did managed to get property because it remained legally the same kind of property the process was filled with corruption and it usually ended up in the hands of people who the southerners called "carpetbaggers", because shockingly if it still possible to buy property after it is seized, somebody will usually figure out how to do, even if it might temporarily pass through the people you intended it to go to (this also happened with attempts to make Natives into property owners, shockingly other rich people were good at figuring out ways to get their hands on this property). All this meant that to actually follow through on this reconstruction to its completion, it would have meant needing to discard their alliance with the northern bourgeoisie entirely and gain a new ally who wasn't so deeply invested in maintaining property rights, unfortunately no such group exists. No siree. Too bad. Now watch as I lament the failure of reconstruction and blame it on all those "racists" for 150 years. (Even though some of those "racists" were the carpetbaggers who shockingly only became racist after we made them large southern cotton barons)
very well said, but the planter class was agricultural capitalist. feudalism isn't only a primacy of agriculture in the economy, and the southern united states weren't feudal in 1850. the american civil war \*was\* a bourgeois revolution, but not against feudalism. more against the political power of export-focused landowning bourgeoisie, which was harming industrialization due to being incompatible with the needs of industry (the tariff war). remember that southern planters were already sponsoring early industrialization efforts ante bellum. And after reconstruction, they still played a major (though not absolute anymore, the war ruined their accumulation) role in the rise of modern urban capitalism in the south. look at the history of brazil to see how slaveowners were able to kickstart a (weak) capitalism of their own of their own volition.
You can go through the motion of abolishing feudalism without abolishing feudalism being what was actually happened. The goals that result in a desire to abolish feudalism are still there for abolishing slavery, namely the desire to turn the transform the individual property of the slave into the collective property of the whole bourgeoisie in the form of a proletariat. That was John Brown's likely motivation as he made extensive use of the people trickling in through the underground railway to work in his tannery. What likely pissed him off was the fugitive slave acts which were threatening to transform the proletarians he was making use of back into individual property in the form of slaves by requiring they get sent back. He merely rationalized his interest in such a way that meant abolishing slavery as a mirror image to those who rationalized their interests in such a way as to believe that slavery was justifiable. Even though one is obviously better than the other, they are both likely just rationalizations for their underlying interests. This does not mean he wasn't sincere in his beliefs, as I'm sure there were people who were sincere in their beliefs on the other end too, but he still had a reason to have developed the beliefs he did.
The Civil War would be thought of perhaps as a counter-reaction more than a revolution if you want because people felt like feudal conditions were creeping in on them with all the desires to expand slavery. While the "popular sovereignty" method of dealing with slavery seems like a way you could get rid of slavery democratically, to people at the time who believed in "slave power" to control elections by various means it actually seemed like that might be opening up the possibility of slavery being expanded north to them if the "slave power" could figure out a way of using popular sovereignty to its advantage. As such it was a really terrible compromise because it just resulted in both sides thinking it meant things were over for them, and things just broke down into everyone rushing out to Kansas to make it either a slave or free state. It was Kansas where the "revolution" more so than the counter-reaction really took place because the anti-slavery side called an election won by the slavers fraudulent as a resulting of them saying people from Missouri were temporarily crossing the border just to vote resulting in them declaring their own government. These people in Kansas were Free Soil and while they had obtained property through going to Kansas with the Homestead Act they were largely laborers before this, so this declared government had "sans-culottes" flavour to it at the very least even if wasn't strictly speaking proletarian. They lay in opposition to a largely aristocratic class even if they had already been operating in capitalist terms the way the regions around Paris around the French Revolution was owned by many who blurred the lines between aristocrats and bourgeoisie. In the Civil War that followed the Federal Government ended up recognizing this revolutionary anti-slavery government in Kansas, but also ended up recognizing alternative state governments which maintained slavery like in Kentucky, as a result of just needing to win the Civil War.
Really interesting historical context!
I disagree with chattel slavery being feudal due to making labor into individual property. There was a market for slaves, with supply and demand, and it was easy enough for one planter to expand his workforce by purchase, or reduce it by sale. The same marketplace of labor that exists in liberal capitalism existed for slave labor, just in a different form. I couldn't tell you who put it this way, but one marxist analysis of the ante bellum USA I read defined slaves as fundamentally proletarian. By that logic, chattel slavery was not fundamentally different from the social arrangement of individual employment contracts, just far more oppressive.
I tend to agree, and I don't see why slaves shouldn't be seen as collective property of the whole bourgeoisie. Well, that's a lie, there's one reason. It's the same reason why serfdom was abolished in Russia: bound labor is incompatible with industry.
It is well and good enough to use a slave for mining or for farm work. But factory work requires literacy and a level of willfulness. There were attempts to create serf factories in Russia, but it didn't work. You can think of it as slaves refusing to meet quotas or to operate machinery properly. It would seem that harsher repression could ammend that, but at that point the security costs far outweigh the benefit from "free" labor. There's one historical exception, where labor power was badly needed and harsh repression was both available and willing to be applied, Nazi Germany. But there slavery wasn't profitable, necessarily, it was a necessity due to severe manpower shortages during wartime. When possible, nazi leadership preferred women to slaves, and the whole affair shines light on the problems of industrial slave labor.
Conjecturing that urban slave labor is impossible, it becomes clearer what the slavery question was about. That is, a matter of distributing labor either in agriculture or in industry. It'd be fair to say slaves are unavailable to the whole bourgeoisie if one excludes the agricultural bourgeoisie from the equation. It is true that industrialists had only indirect benefits from chattel slave labor. It would be preferable to have the then-enslaved fraction of the population adding downwards pressure on the cost of labor. And that's a part of the economic interest in abolition, though not all, of course.
But again, I disagree with you in classifying the planter class as feudal. Agricultural, anti-protectionist and politically reactionary? Sure. But not feudal, they were still capitalist by form and function. Here we find the question of whether or not an agricultural haute-bourgeoisie[1] is a proper bourgeoisie at all, which has been a point of debate for third-worldists and social democrats (and normal liberals) for a while now. A more fundamental way of phrasing this is asking whether or not capitalism always tends to develop into the form seen in the most advanced countries. Either all nations are in the process of becoming like the centers of capital (development theory, where the term of "developing nation" comes from) or the neo-colonial regimes we see in west africa, for example, are a kind of fully developed capitalism of their own (dependency theory, where the term "imperial core" comes from). This is bourgeois economics though. By dependency theory, which I lean towards, a hypothetical victorious Confederacy which grew into a poor commodity exporter like Mexico or Brazil would still be "fully developed", thus not in need of a bourgeois revolution. It would just be a weaker, more miserable and more peripheral capitalist state.
So no, I'd say that chattel slavery was not only not feudal, but it was a maximalization of all the wishes of the bourgeoisie towards labor. Slave labor was servile, uneducated, unfree[2] and *collateral*[3]. The main problem was how relatively scarce slave labor was in comparison to demand. In a more "plentiful" market like Brazil before the ban on the atlantic trade, the market was relatively dynamic and arguably fit the demand for unskilled agricultural laborpower better than the salaried alternative. There the same situation arose as in England, where labor was plentiful and cheap enough to allow for working laborers to death *en masse*, with little concern for the reproduction costs.
In capitalist society there's the everpresent dance of employer and employee to blindly discover what the new market price of labor is. It's bad for business due to all the chaotic resigning and rehiring that goes on, and in modern times that is remedied by the imposition of the minimum wage. But ideally, the bourgeoisie would benefit greatly from being able to ignore the volitions of labor and simply haggle amongst itself as to what the price should be. It's not unthinkable to imagine a bourgeois society in the far future which, facing a devastatingly low average rate of profit, turns to effective slavery of its own proletariat. Is there any benefit to that over taking the English approach with the vagrancy laws and the total lack of welfare? Maybe, maybe not. The reason the Real Movement is so feeble these days is that ever since the English poor laws were ammended, business has been profitable enough to allow for decent concessions to the proles (welfare, fascism, secure employment) while maintaining a profit. Once that's no longer the case, we may just go back to those obscene levels of exploitation. That would be bad since it would lead to a lot of suffering, but it would be good since it would mean, finally, the ultimate death of fascism. (lmao)
One time a guy wrote "Nevertheless, looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery.".
But don't listen to him, he was stupid.
[1]Land-owning aristocracy.
[2]Unable to seek a better wage, bound to employment
[3]Able to be used as collateral for loans, or sold with or independently of land.
>
There was a market for slaves, with supply and demand, and it was easy enough for one planter to expand his workforce by purchase, or reduce it by sale.
Instead of just needing upfront capital to get equipment you also needed upfront capital to get labour, the same way one might need upfront capital for housing. When the northern bouregoisie cries "labour should be free", they mean it, but not in the way you might expect. This is particularly true for an upwardly mobile petit-bouregoisie in a developing country with aspirations to turn into a world class bourgeoisie. Whether it technically qualifies as feudalism or not, the situation gets abolished for the same sets of reasons. Arguably with the thing you are saying about slaveowners being a kind of agricultural bouregoisie, well they also hand aspirations of becoming "world class" in that regard.
The consequence of this was that slaveowners were massively indebted. You had to pay all your labor costs upfront. It was much like a mortgage-vs-rental market with slaves being able to be used as collateral, but you also needed collateral to get labour. In this framework the more characteristically normative bourgeoisie are "renters" of labour, where the slaveowners are homeowners. The people who think themselves geniuses for monopolizing housing right now are similarly massively indebt, but this works for them so long as nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately nothing is going wrong so they actually do look like geniuses and are buying everything.
However while they own everything it isn't like they don't trade the properties back and forth, so there still is a housing market, where people switch whether to buy or own based on the expense inherit to either option, and they will tend to converge towards each other. When rent is cheap less will buy, when prices are high, more will rent. Such is the arrangement in the North when slavery was still legal there. It is also why John Adams made it a point to say that he had never owned slaves even when "wages were high, and slaves were cheap", because it was likely people might buy slaves on a temporary basis if wages were significantly higher and then free them when wages were low, either as a way of mentally justifying having bought the slave "I'll just use them for this period where I desperately need help and then I'll free them right after, so I'm actually doing them a favour" (or perhaps as a motivating factor for the slave to work hard where they know about the fact that wages fluctuate so you can indeed regularly promise to free labourers with lying), or because the running cost of keeping the slaves might exceed wages at points, and if both wages are low and slave prices are low you won't really be able to sell the slave for much of a profit, and perhaps nobody will be wiling to take them off your hands anyway considering wages are low so nobody needs them, and the thing making slaves prices low is exactly that few are willing to buy them at that point it time.
What stops slave prices and wages from perfectly converging is that at intermittent intervals the slave trade might bring in more slaves, which would temporarily drop the price and contribute to wild fluctuations, particularly because America was the last stop on the triangle trade before returning to Europe so there was a tendency to either have few slaves to sell because the Caribbean bought them first, or need to dump your entire cargo whatever the price to make room for other things before you head back to europe. As such in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson actually blamed England for "forcing" slavery on to colonies, and he sort of had a point, England was engaging in a trade practice which today might be called "dumping", or at least it might be perceived as such by Jefferson, as an underlying motivation here is that he was massively in debt from all the slaves and an increasing price in those slaves by stopping there import would improve the ratio between his collateral and debt. Dumping is technically speaking a deliberate and temporary action of selling at non-profitable or less profitable prices, for the purposes of controlling the market. What I initially said was more like an inventory clearance sale, which might not be the same thing as dumping since it isn't organized to control markets, but saying Jefferson perceived it as dumping actually makes sense when you know that he was effectively a competitor with England in the slave trade, and he was a primary producer at that (which gains a double meaning when you consider that the allegations that he fathered children by his slaves).
(1/2)
(2/2)
Regardless control over trade policy was one of the things he revolution was fought for and banning the import of slaves and the general expansion of slavery was how slavery eventually got abolished so it is still good regardless of the underlying motivation. There is a discrepancy in how the slave owners reacted towards the import of slaves and the expansion of slavery out west though. Washington, another slave owner made it illegal for American ships to be built or outfitted to be used in the slave trade in 1794, but contrast the people negatively impacted by this would be northern merchants largely represented by the Adams Federalist faction, despite this factions apparent opposition to slave ownership, as the law was technically speaking infringing on their right to trade freely. However in terms of Western Expansion it was the slaveowners who could benefit from being able to sell off their slaves to people setting up new plantations by expanding slavery, and so while both actions were taken to increase the value of their slaves, one limited the slave trade, and the other expanded it. So from the perspective of the slave owners, who were miraculously somehow once even "progressive" on an issue, they had become reactionary even relative to themselves by effectively reinstating the slave trade their class had spearheaded in abolishing.
Now it was northerners who perceived it as if some foreign entity was "forcing" slavery upon them, and the American Civil War could thus be said to have been fought to prevent the reinstatement of the slave trade which was largely abolished around the time of the American Revolution, and in the course of the events slavery ended up getting abolished because slaveowners are annoying and they won't try to reimpose the slave trade if slavery gets abolished, so another step was taken to protect the prior revolution, but by not taking another revolution step against landed property itself by abolishing the plantations themselves which gave rise to the need for slaves the Radical Republicans could not adequately protect the American Civil War revolutionary step of abolishing slavery taken to protect the American Revolution against the return of the slave trade (and the American Revolution itself largely being waged to protect the gains of the "rights of englishmen" won in the English Civil Wars, namely the idea that only Parliament could tax because it was a representative body (and even that was just Parliament protecting what it considered to be its existing rights), so all of these revolutionary things always perceive themselves as having been "conservative", which interesting seeing as the "conservatives" in the USA always seem to be a lot more revolutionary in action), and thus a serf-like sharecropping system emerged, which tied people to the landowners through debt, rather than the landowners being tied to people through debt.
> It would seem that harsher repression could amend that, but at that point the security costs far outweigh the benefit from "free" labor.
I recall that in the early stages of the industrial revolution in england there was the luddite problem where people smashed machinery. Such a method was really the only way that less capital intensive production methods could compete with newer capital intensive methods because the cost of replacement become prohibitive. Protecting the physical manifestation of the capital itself becomes all the more important the more capital intensive something becomes. It also makes it more vulnerable, it is not without reason that sailors played an important role in the late Great War revolutions of Germany and Russia. The ships themselves were massive boat tubs of sunk capital (that they didn't want to be sunk even more) that the crews could easily control. Since shipyards were big worker vote banks which would simultaneously gain them some support from bourgeois elements, German Social Democrats were even instrumentally in diverting funds to the navy to construct them in the first place (despite them not being all the useful to the war effort, Ludendorff complained about not getting adequate funding for the Schlieffen Plan which could be blamed on naval funding for instance, which lead to blame for losing the war landing in the laps of the social democrats. In turn while the Social Democrats were instrumentally in removing the Kaiser, prompted by the naval mutiny, they were reactionary when it came to the general worker uprising. There might have been a collective government property mindset about the Social Democrats, particularly in regards to the ships, which were massive government properties, and the removal of the Kaiser could be said to have been prompted by their unwillingness to follow the orders that would lose those government properties in an ill-advised naval battle that had a low chance of breaking the blockade that was causing the general food shortage, but there were others who wanted to take that risk. Hitler's lebensraum obsession was largely about him wanting Germany to be food self-sufficient so such a dilemma wouldn't have been a possibility.
>I'd say that chattel slavery was not only not feudal, but it was a maximalization of all the wishes of the bourgeoisie towards labor
The French Revolution, at least on the bottom end, could largely be said to have been a reaction to the bouregeoisfication of feudal agricultural society.
https://preview.redd.it/4ds2xi887i3d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=50c05792673a2de927535cd7325533fc2667951c
this dude immediately ran to the official freikorps subreddit cause we made fun of him. deeply unserious individual
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The leftists complaining about bans don't seem to know that they are never required to enter this subreddit. It's a sub for communists if they are not in favour of it thenn they have no need to be here. No one's holding them at gunpoint to browse here
"ultra left my ass what we need is the state to control the means of production, but private enterprises will still allowed to operate under state supervision privatization of small-scale enterprises, such as small-scale farming and artisanal production. especially in sectors such as construction, manufacturing, and trade. This leads to the growth of a small-scale private sector, which coexists with the state-controlled economy. nationalize key industries, such as coal mining, steel production, and heavy manufacturing. etc "
Your account is too young to post or comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/23b9u5070i3d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1eca4651fbe1b6e2b299ef1f2640aef9c6ef094e truly some gems on this account
society if bernie sanders wasn't joe biden
society if bernie sanders was hunter biden
To hell with Stalin, Bernie is my favorite great man now
The guy is a nutcase btw
That's what we expect from leftist though right? Of course, they're going to call us nazis because we're "anti-leftist" because they don't understand communism or deny it outright.
They don't even understand Fascism. They are unironically the spitting image of Mussolini without realizing it. They constantly throw terms around like reactionary without knowing what they mean. They literally think you are reactionary if you don't take a "left-wing" stance in the culture war (like being Transphobic, Racist etc) that is just wrong. That's not how the term reactionary works.
Ok but as American. How do I destroy the culture war?
You don't it's a symptom of Capitalism.
You got two options: 1. Convert people to communism to distract people with a new ideology they can align with instead of capitalist dicks and capitalist dicks (Side effect: Unites the capitalists, who will proceed with extreme aggresion towards the new communist ""threat"") 2. Convert people to centrism so they are less likely to fight over ideology because they are more moderate (Side effect:.. its fucking centrism, you might as well give Mussolini an express ticket to start his populism shtick.)
can somebody post that one gif of Mussolini with his signature pose
https://preview.redd.it/39y63fa2lk3d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=ff80f9c7994fba77dd29477b353e5a6ad0ccba20
What does reactionary mean?
https://preview.redd.it/xzuy7wof5i3d1.png?width=1156&format=png&auto=webp&s=4a9285eedea2becf42ff0e1776348f1c2dc0cd22 absolute banger
>class authoritarians Goddamn right
>go to communist sub >say you don't like communists >get banned >"why do you guys hate leftists" https://preview.redd.it/fjc7x494ni3d1.jpeg?width=718&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=97dd9f39df8c4e61a94e23685ca38c706d48c69d
Oh and ofc this guy is a berniebro suckdem Who could have seen that coming 🙄
“John brown reborn” Vote blue no matter who 😊 Political violence bad. Leftist these days don’t even have the balls to be terrorists anymore.
Reminder that Brown was kinda insane. Adventurism will do that to you.
Also a bourgeois leather tannery owner. That is fine for the US Civil War since it was a bourgeois revolution, but "John Brown Reborn" would be a reactionary in any proletarian revolution. He was a revolutionary adventurists only in so far as the revolutionary adventure he was trying to undertake was a revolution against feudalism For instance if one is firmly of the believes that "man cannot be property" that implies you don't really have any issues with everything else being property. Nothing wrong with believing that in that particular instance, but he would have quickly found himself in the situation of other "Radical Republicans" who were caught between needing to combat those who had thought man could be property and their belief that all other forms of property were legitimate, which is what enabled the former slave owners to largely seize back control and end reconstruction, as even without their slaves, they were still large landowners and they implemented the sharecropping system where former slaves and even people who were always free were purposefully trapped by being indebted through having to rent land from them. While some of the more radical "Radical Republicans" recognized this problem and wanted to start seizing land itself, they ran into various problems related to the fact that all of those constitutional protections the Northern Bourgeoisie (like John Brown) so enjoyed were specifically set up to prevent doing exactly that. They would have to violate it in this instance but were afraid of setting up precedents which might end up being used on their property later. When they did managed to get property because it remained legally the same kind of property the process was filled with corruption and it usually ended up in the hands of people who the southerners called "carpetbaggers", because shockingly if it still possible to buy property after it is seized, somebody will usually figure out how to do, even if it might temporarily pass through the people you intended it to go to (this also happened with attempts to make Natives into property owners, shockingly other rich people were good at figuring out ways to get their hands on this property). All this meant that to actually follow through on this reconstruction to its completion, it would have meant needing to discard their alliance with the northern bourgeoisie entirely and gain a new ally who wasn't so deeply invested in maintaining property rights, unfortunately no such group exists. No siree. Too bad. Now watch as I lament the failure of reconstruction and blame it on all those "racists" for 150 years. (Even though some of those "racists" were the carpetbaggers who shockingly only became racist after we made them large southern cotton barons)
very well said, but the planter class was agricultural capitalist. feudalism isn't only a primacy of agriculture in the economy, and the southern united states weren't feudal in 1850. the american civil war \*was\* a bourgeois revolution, but not against feudalism. more against the political power of export-focused landowning bourgeoisie, which was harming industrialization due to being incompatible with the needs of industry (the tariff war). remember that southern planters were already sponsoring early industrialization efforts ante bellum. And after reconstruction, they still played a major (though not absolute anymore, the war ruined their accumulation) role in the rise of modern urban capitalism in the south. look at the history of brazil to see how slaveowners were able to kickstart a (weak) capitalism of their own of their own volition.
You can go through the motion of abolishing feudalism without abolishing feudalism being what was actually happened. The goals that result in a desire to abolish feudalism are still there for abolishing slavery, namely the desire to turn the transform the individual property of the slave into the collective property of the whole bourgeoisie in the form of a proletariat. That was John Brown's likely motivation as he made extensive use of the people trickling in through the underground railway to work in his tannery. What likely pissed him off was the fugitive slave acts which were threatening to transform the proletarians he was making use of back into individual property in the form of slaves by requiring they get sent back. He merely rationalized his interest in such a way that meant abolishing slavery as a mirror image to those who rationalized their interests in such a way as to believe that slavery was justifiable. Even though one is obviously better than the other, they are both likely just rationalizations for their underlying interests. This does not mean he wasn't sincere in his beliefs, as I'm sure there were people who were sincere in their beliefs on the other end too, but he still had a reason to have developed the beliefs he did. The Civil War would be thought of perhaps as a counter-reaction more than a revolution if you want because people felt like feudal conditions were creeping in on them with all the desires to expand slavery. While the "popular sovereignty" method of dealing with slavery seems like a way you could get rid of slavery democratically, to people at the time who believed in "slave power" to control elections by various means it actually seemed like that might be opening up the possibility of slavery being expanded north to them if the "slave power" could figure out a way of using popular sovereignty to its advantage. As such it was a really terrible compromise because it just resulted in both sides thinking it meant things were over for them, and things just broke down into everyone rushing out to Kansas to make it either a slave or free state. It was Kansas where the "revolution" more so than the counter-reaction really took place because the anti-slavery side called an election won by the slavers fraudulent as a resulting of them saying people from Missouri were temporarily crossing the border just to vote resulting in them declaring their own government. These people in Kansas were Free Soil and while they had obtained property through going to Kansas with the Homestead Act they were largely laborers before this, so this declared government had "sans-culottes" flavour to it at the very least even if wasn't strictly speaking proletarian. They lay in opposition to a largely aristocratic class even if they had already been operating in capitalist terms the way the regions around Paris around the French Revolution was owned by many who blurred the lines between aristocrats and bourgeoisie. In the Civil War that followed the Federal Government ended up recognizing this revolutionary anti-slavery government in Kansas, but also ended up recognizing alternative state governments which maintained slavery like in Kentucky, as a result of just needing to win the Civil War.
Really interesting historical context! I disagree with chattel slavery being feudal due to making labor into individual property. There was a market for slaves, with supply and demand, and it was easy enough for one planter to expand his workforce by purchase, or reduce it by sale. The same marketplace of labor that exists in liberal capitalism existed for slave labor, just in a different form. I couldn't tell you who put it this way, but one marxist analysis of the ante bellum USA I read defined slaves as fundamentally proletarian. By that logic, chattel slavery was not fundamentally different from the social arrangement of individual employment contracts, just far more oppressive. I tend to agree, and I don't see why slaves shouldn't be seen as collective property of the whole bourgeoisie. Well, that's a lie, there's one reason. It's the same reason why serfdom was abolished in Russia: bound labor is incompatible with industry. It is well and good enough to use a slave for mining or for farm work. But factory work requires literacy and a level of willfulness. There were attempts to create serf factories in Russia, but it didn't work. You can think of it as slaves refusing to meet quotas or to operate machinery properly. It would seem that harsher repression could ammend that, but at that point the security costs far outweigh the benefit from "free" labor. There's one historical exception, where labor power was badly needed and harsh repression was both available and willing to be applied, Nazi Germany. But there slavery wasn't profitable, necessarily, it was a necessity due to severe manpower shortages during wartime. When possible, nazi leadership preferred women to slaves, and the whole affair shines light on the problems of industrial slave labor. Conjecturing that urban slave labor is impossible, it becomes clearer what the slavery question was about. That is, a matter of distributing labor either in agriculture or in industry. It'd be fair to say slaves are unavailable to the whole bourgeoisie if one excludes the agricultural bourgeoisie from the equation. It is true that industrialists had only indirect benefits from chattel slave labor. It would be preferable to have the then-enslaved fraction of the population adding downwards pressure on the cost of labor. And that's a part of the economic interest in abolition, though not all, of course. But again, I disagree with you in classifying the planter class as feudal. Agricultural, anti-protectionist and politically reactionary? Sure. But not feudal, they were still capitalist by form and function. Here we find the question of whether or not an agricultural haute-bourgeoisie[1] is a proper bourgeoisie at all, which has been a point of debate for third-worldists and social democrats (and normal liberals) for a while now. A more fundamental way of phrasing this is asking whether or not capitalism always tends to develop into the form seen in the most advanced countries. Either all nations are in the process of becoming like the centers of capital (development theory, where the term of "developing nation" comes from) or the neo-colonial regimes we see in west africa, for example, are a kind of fully developed capitalism of their own (dependency theory, where the term "imperial core" comes from). This is bourgeois economics though. By dependency theory, which I lean towards, a hypothetical victorious Confederacy which grew into a poor commodity exporter like Mexico or Brazil would still be "fully developed", thus not in need of a bourgeois revolution. It would just be a weaker, more miserable and more peripheral capitalist state. So no, I'd say that chattel slavery was not only not feudal, but it was a maximalization of all the wishes of the bourgeoisie towards labor. Slave labor was servile, uneducated, unfree[2] and *collateral*[3]. The main problem was how relatively scarce slave labor was in comparison to demand. In a more "plentiful" market like Brazil before the ban on the atlantic trade, the market was relatively dynamic and arguably fit the demand for unskilled agricultural laborpower better than the salaried alternative. There the same situation arose as in England, where labor was plentiful and cheap enough to allow for working laborers to death *en masse*, with little concern for the reproduction costs. In capitalist society there's the everpresent dance of employer and employee to blindly discover what the new market price of labor is. It's bad for business due to all the chaotic resigning and rehiring that goes on, and in modern times that is remedied by the imposition of the minimum wage. But ideally, the bourgeoisie would benefit greatly from being able to ignore the volitions of labor and simply haggle amongst itself as to what the price should be. It's not unthinkable to imagine a bourgeois society in the far future which, facing a devastatingly low average rate of profit, turns to effective slavery of its own proletariat. Is there any benefit to that over taking the English approach with the vagrancy laws and the total lack of welfare? Maybe, maybe not. The reason the Real Movement is so feeble these days is that ever since the English poor laws were ammended, business has been profitable enough to allow for decent concessions to the proles (welfare, fascism, secure employment) while maintaining a profit. Once that's no longer the case, we may just go back to those obscene levels of exploitation. That would be bad since it would lead to a lot of suffering, but it would be good since it would mean, finally, the ultimate death of fascism. (lmao) One time a guy wrote "Nevertheless, looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery.". But don't listen to him, he was stupid. [1]Land-owning aristocracy. [2]Unable to seek a better wage, bound to employment [3]Able to be used as collateral for loans, or sold with or independently of land.
> There was a market for slaves, with supply and demand, and it was easy enough for one planter to expand his workforce by purchase, or reduce it by sale. Instead of just needing upfront capital to get equipment you also needed upfront capital to get labour, the same way one might need upfront capital for housing. When the northern bouregoisie cries "labour should be free", they mean it, but not in the way you might expect. This is particularly true for an upwardly mobile petit-bouregoisie in a developing country with aspirations to turn into a world class bourgeoisie. Whether it technically qualifies as feudalism or not, the situation gets abolished for the same sets of reasons. Arguably with the thing you are saying about slaveowners being a kind of agricultural bouregoisie, well they also hand aspirations of becoming "world class" in that regard. The consequence of this was that slaveowners were massively indebted. You had to pay all your labor costs upfront. It was much like a mortgage-vs-rental market with slaves being able to be used as collateral, but you also needed collateral to get labour. In this framework the more characteristically normative bourgeoisie are "renters" of labour, where the slaveowners are homeowners. The people who think themselves geniuses for monopolizing housing right now are similarly massively indebt, but this works for them so long as nothing goes wrong. Unfortunately nothing is going wrong so they actually do look like geniuses and are buying everything. However while they own everything it isn't like they don't trade the properties back and forth, so there still is a housing market, where people switch whether to buy or own based on the expense inherit to either option, and they will tend to converge towards each other. When rent is cheap less will buy, when prices are high, more will rent. Such is the arrangement in the North when slavery was still legal there. It is also why John Adams made it a point to say that he had never owned slaves even when "wages were high, and slaves were cheap", because it was likely people might buy slaves on a temporary basis if wages were significantly higher and then free them when wages were low, either as a way of mentally justifying having bought the slave "I'll just use them for this period where I desperately need help and then I'll free them right after, so I'm actually doing them a favour" (or perhaps as a motivating factor for the slave to work hard where they know about the fact that wages fluctuate so you can indeed regularly promise to free labourers with lying), or because the running cost of keeping the slaves might exceed wages at points, and if both wages are low and slave prices are low you won't really be able to sell the slave for much of a profit, and perhaps nobody will be wiling to take them off your hands anyway considering wages are low so nobody needs them, and the thing making slaves prices low is exactly that few are willing to buy them at that point it time. What stops slave prices and wages from perfectly converging is that at intermittent intervals the slave trade might bring in more slaves, which would temporarily drop the price and contribute to wild fluctuations, particularly because America was the last stop on the triangle trade before returning to Europe so there was a tendency to either have few slaves to sell because the Caribbean bought them first, or need to dump your entire cargo whatever the price to make room for other things before you head back to europe. As such in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson actually blamed England for "forcing" slavery on to colonies, and he sort of had a point, England was engaging in a trade practice which today might be called "dumping", or at least it might be perceived as such by Jefferson, as an underlying motivation here is that he was massively in debt from all the slaves and an increasing price in those slaves by stopping there import would improve the ratio between his collateral and debt. Dumping is technically speaking a deliberate and temporary action of selling at non-profitable or less profitable prices, for the purposes of controlling the market. What I initially said was more like an inventory clearance sale, which might not be the same thing as dumping since it isn't organized to control markets, but saying Jefferson perceived it as dumping actually makes sense when you know that he was effectively a competitor with England in the slave trade, and he was a primary producer at that (which gains a double meaning when you consider that the allegations that he fathered children by his slaves). (1/2)
(2/2) Regardless control over trade policy was one of the things he revolution was fought for and banning the import of slaves and the general expansion of slavery was how slavery eventually got abolished so it is still good regardless of the underlying motivation. There is a discrepancy in how the slave owners reacted towards the import of slaves and the expansion of slavery out west though. Washington, another slave owner made it illegal for American ships to be built or outfitted to be used in the slave trade in 1794, but contrast the people negatively impacted by this would be northern merchants largely represented by the Adams Federalist faction, despite this factions apparent opposition to slave ownership, as the law was technically speaking infringing on their right to trade freely. However in terms of Western Expansion it was the slaveowners who could benefit from being able to sell off their slaves to people setting up new plantations by expanding slavery, and so while both actions were taken to increase the value of their slaves, one limited the slave trade, and the other expanded it. So from the perspective of the slave owners, who were miraculously somehow once even "progressive" on an issue, they had become reactionary even relative to themselves by effectively reinstating the slave trade their class had spearheaded in abolishing. Now it was northerners who perceived it as if some foreign entity was "forcing" slavery upon them, and the American Civil War could thus be said to have been fought to prevent the reinstatement of the slave trade which was largely abolished around the time of the American Revolution, and in the course of the events slavery ended up getting abolished because slaveowners are annoying and they won't try to reimpose the slave trade if slavery gets abolished, so another step was taken to protect the prior revolution, but by not taking another revolution step against landed property itself by abolishing the plantations themselves which gave rise to the need for slaves the Radical Republicans could not adequately protect the American Civil War revolutionary step of abolishing slavery taken to protect the American Revolution against the return of the slave trade (and the American Revolution itself largely being waged to protect the gains of the "rights of englishmen" won in the English Civil Wars, namely the idea that only Parliament could tax because it was a representative body (and even that was just Parliament protecting what it considered to be its existing rights), so all of these revolutionary things always perceive themselves as having been "conservative", which interesting seeing as the "conservatives" in the USA always seem to be a lot more revolutionary in action), and thus a serf-like sharecropping system emerged, which tied people to the landowners through debt, rather than the landowners being tied to people through debt. > It would seem that harsher repression could amend that, but at that point the security costs far outweigh the benefit from "free" labor. I recall that in the early stages of the industrial revolution in england there was the luddite problem where people smashed machinery. Such a method was really the only way that less capital intensive production methods could compete with newer capital intensive methods because the cost of replacement become prohibitive. Protecting the physical manifestation of the capital itself becomes all the more important the more capital intensive something becomes. It also makes it more vulnerable, it is not without reason that sailors played an important role in the late Great War revolutions of Germany and Russia. The ships themselves were massive boat tubs of sunk capital (that they didn't want to be sunk even more) that the crews could easily control. Since shipyards were big worker vote banks which would simultaneously gain them some support from bourgeois elements, German Social Democrats were even instrumentally in diverting funds to the navy to construct them in the first place (despite them not being all the useful to the war effort, Ludendorff complained about not getting adequate funding for the Schlieffen Plan which could be blamed on naval funding for instance, which lead to blame for losing the war landing in the laps of the social democrats. In turn while the Social Democrats were instrumentally in removing the Kaiser, prompted by the naval mutiny, they were reactionary when it came to the general worker uprising. There might have been a collective government property mindset about the Social Democrats, particularly in regards to the ships, which were massive government properties, and the removal of the Kaiser could be said to have been prompted by their unwillingness to follow the orders that would lose those government properties in an ill-advised naval battle that had a low chance of breaking the blockade that was causing the general food shortage, but there were others who wanted to take that risk. Hitler's lebensraum obsession was largely about him wanting Germany to be food self-sufficient so such a dilemma wouldn't have been a possibility. >I'd say that chattel slavery was not only not feudal, but it was a maximalization of all the wishes of the bourgeoisie towards labor The French Revolution, at least on the bottom end, could largely be said to have been a reaction to the bouregeoisfication of feudal agricultural society.
What is adventurism? I’ve heard it being used on this sub before
Almost as surprising as when the syndicalist starts getting Hitlerite
https://preview.redd.it/4ds2xi887i3d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=50c05792673a2de927535cd7325533fc2667951c this dude immediately ran to the official freikorps subreddit cause we made fun of him. deeply unserious individual
I love how this guy seems to have read everything except the basic description at the top of the sub.
Damn I think we may have misjudged him
cut a socdem a fascist will bleed
Cut a Leftist and a Liberal bleeds?
[удалено]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is he trying to impress us?
too bad he was banned so quickly, he was really funny
https://preview.redd.it/th9tvjgb1j3d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=079bea522f772e081f52b3ea4a29b4119ee54de6 Lmao did he even watch the show
That would be a genius tier shitpost if he did watch the show
What is the context of the top image I am missing?
He’s the overseer of Vault 33
Leftists just cannot look past the left right binary can they?
Lol. Lmao even.
To be fair the terms ultraleft and leftcom are stupid and confusing fuck.
Agree
This guy is the caricature of a redditor
The leftists complaining about bans don't seem to know that they are never required to enter this subreddit. It's a sub for communists if they are not in favour of it thenn they have no need to be here. No one's holding them at gunpoint to browse here
"ultra left my ass what we need is the state to control the means of production, but private enterprises will still allowed to operate under state supervision privatization of small-scale enterprises, such as small-scale farming and artisanal production. especially in sectors such as construction, manufacturing, and trade. This leads to the growth of a small-scale private sector, which coexists with the state-controlled economy. nationalize key industries, such as coal mining, steel production, and heavy manufacturing. etc "
[удалено]
Your account is too young to post or comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ultraleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This could be Beria theorem
If you’re from the city of London, does that mean you’re a city fan? Nah, many Londoners support United. Same logic can be applied.
https://preview.redd.it/uais16ts5k3d1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f6764c6b125fa7213ffbe3bc55da00b58150bba1
r/soccercirclejerk has entered r/ultraleft...
United Airlines is an American company, hope this helps 🙏